Abstract

This study aims to understand the perceived polarity between main contractors and subcontractors with a view to resolving problems connected with retentions in an environment where a sliding-retention regime is utilised with a retention rate of 10% for work below NZ $ 200,000. Eight structural steel subcontractors operating in Auckland were interviewed. Contrary to popular belief, subcontractors are not averse to retentions with most taking a middle ground. Nevertheless, the apparently fair practice of using back-to-back contract terms is not seen as fair and reasonable. Most solutions acceptable to subcontractors impact negatively on contractors’ cash flow highlighting the need for some form of reciprocity from subcontractors (price discounts, improved performance, etc.) to induce contractors to offer favourable retention regimes. This highlights the need for a theory on ‘retention reciprocity’ to supplement the five theories on retentions. However, given that not all contractors can be expected to display reciprocity fairness, an interventionist approach may be necessary in order to neutralise any imbalances in power between the contracting parties possibly through amendments to the Construction Contracts Act, and when doing so, there is a need to exercise much caution as the outcome of chaotic systems could be quite unpredictable.